secret no more. i'm toure. the president flooding the political world with the second term agenda and washington saying you can't walk on water. i'm steve kornacki. is football worth dying for? former players take on the nfl trying to save the league if itself. i'm kristal ball. >> my plea to beyonce. maybe i'll sing it. watch and find out. one of the ben filths of having the worldwide resources of nbc news behind you is that you get exclusives like this. the doj memo that explains why it believes it's perfectly legal for the president to kill any american overseas who's a suspected senior terror leader. according to the 16-page memo, the executive branch doesn't have to answer to anyone, not the courts, not congress.

no one. it lays out a three-part kill list criteria, step one, informed high level u.s. official has determined the target poses a, quote, iminnocent threat of violent attack and clear evidence of an attack is not required. step two, capture must be, quote, infeasible. and step three, the strike must be conducted according to, quote, laws of war principles. but this isn't a just in case guideline. the targeted killings of u.s. citizens have already happened. september 2011, two were killed in yemen. both were u.s. citizens. yes, it's believed al allaki wa connected to the christmas day bomber but he was never charged with a crime. here's how the doj and the white house defend the kill list. >> our concern is to keep the american people safe but in a way that's consistent with our

laws and consistent with our values. >> we conduct those strikes because they're necessary to mitigate ongoing actual threats, to stop plots, prevent future attacks and save american lives. the strikes are legal, they're ethical and wise. >> critics say this administration is putting the constitutional rights of american citizens in jeopardy and disregarding federal law that criminalizes assassinating u.s. nationals. why? in the name of diplomatic self defense. jameel jaffe says this recognizes some limits on the authority it sets out but the limits are elastic and vaguely defined and easy to see how they could be manipulated. if this came out under the bush presidency, wouldn't there be protests on pennsylvania avenue? calls for impeachment. didn't senator obama demand

transparency and promise it in his own? the issues enumerated at this table, i'll go through again vis-a-vis this memo. talked about civilian deaths including children. this doesn't account for that. doesn't try to justify that or explain that. rules of engagement which i have said are necessary going forward to continue a drone policy. questions like are we at war when we employ drone strikes in yemen, for example? is that a war situation? would we consider pakistan declaring war on us if they advanced drone strikes on us? i think we would. this document basically says we can fire on a host nation with their consent or because they do not give it. that's pretty fuzzy. that's pretty vague. the third issue we have talked about is due process.

and apparently we can completely subvert the constitution and kill americans without due process if their capture is quote/unquote infeasible and imminent threat. that's vague and easy to sort of get around. and fourth, the issue that i've also brought up is just the hypocrisy. this is fine and good under obama and the anti-war movement has become invisible for the most part and under republican administration this would be a huge deal. >> yeah. i think you have a point there in terms of if this had come out under bush there would be a louder outcry from the left than you're hearing. that said, i think this document is going to now be a central -- play a central role in the brennan confirmation hearing this week and a number of democratic senators asking pointed questions about this document and more specifically whether the white house and department of justice will release the actual memo. this is a summary memo.

>> i talked to senator king's office today, democrat, maine. he said he's very much looking forward to making this a crucial part of the questioning on brennan on thursday. >> right. and again, what this document actually is, it's like a white paper, a summary of the actual official office of legal counsel for the department of justice that authorized the killings of american citizens. the concern and it's popping up a little bit today, the concern is that there are -- the actual memo is a lot more damning to the administration. the memo is a lot broader, it may be vaguer in terms of -- >> this is pretty broad and vague. >> right. and yet it would be that it doesn't even limit it necessarily to this war on terror that and that is really the risk here and if you want to defend this on the grounds of i don't mind the obama administration maybe doing this, you are giving the power, the latitude to any future president. a president you may not like or trust. that's the risk with executive

authority. if republicans go along with it, democrats go along with it and then both expand it, future president gets that power and then i'm not comfortable with this. >> we're at war with al qaeda right now. and if you join al qaeda you lose the right to be an american. you lose a right to due process and committing treason. i don't why should we should expand american rights to people to kill americans, committing treason. this is not criticizing the united states. this is going to war against the united states. >> what about the 16-year-old killed? >> what do you mean what about the 16-year-old? >> also an american citizen, 16 years old. >> born in denver killed by one of these authorized drone attacks. >> we have said that. we have criticized that all the way through -- >> we are not talking about civilian casualties. >> this is the son of al alawaki. >> if we have people who are working against america then

they need to die. because they're plotting to kill americans. and if we don't protect americans -- >> based on what evidence, toure? this is the problem. >> look. >> where's the evidence? >> i think the thing here is it's such a complicated issue and easy to have a black and white view of it. it definitely falls in the areas of gray and i think there's two questions here. one is the sort of is it legal? is it moral? is it ethical? something the united states should be doing in general? another question is of transparency. i'm with toure. if we are at war with al qaeda, and part of the challenge here is that is a war that doesn't have the border of a traditional war and grappling with here, that's part of the struggle. but the part i'm uncomfortable with is, why couldn't the memo be made public to start with? there's a fundamental lack of transparency, we don't know how many civilian casualties they

are, what the decision -- what the tree looks like to make the decisions and the american public don't have a chance to weigh in on what are we comfortable with, what's in the national security interest and the traditions of our country? >> the american public -- congress doesn't even get to weigh in on this. >> that's exactly right. the other piece that's important in the bigger picture is. we don't know what broader impact this strategy has on sentiment towards americans abroad. how do people in yemen feel about this policy? how does that -- is it used as an effective al qaeda recruiting tool? we don't know the answer to those questions either. that's where my issue comes in with the lack of transparency. >> let's not do things because we might radicalize people. >> that was an argument under bush. >> when we say this person is leading al qaeda to do things -- when you join al qaeda -- >> you're kind of what you're setting up is a straw man.

i don't -- i don't think many people would take issue with if somebody is an enemy combatant and document and prove and provide evidence plotting attacks to kill americans and the united states does not have an obligation to go after and take out that individual or that group of individuals but the point is there's a shadow -- sort of shadow government almost. taking place behind the scenes and where the obama administration wanted it to be and it's basically what this document says is a high-ranking official makes the determination whether somebody poses an imminent threat and says in the memo, imminence as defined by the justice department does not require the u.s. to have clear evidence that a specific attack on u.s. persons and interests will take place in the immediate future. >> i'm comfortable with that. as soon as you join al qaeda, that's an imminent threat to the united states. you don't have to be -- >> who determines that someone joined al qaeda? >> talking about father and son. talking about a father and son killed here and the father up to

some pretty bad stuff but what about the son? >> one thing that's interesting going back to john brennan and the hearings that will occur on thursday is on the one hand, he has been in a lot of ways architect of this policy, the man behind the drone strike policy. on the other hand, it is reported that he is also the sort of moral compass, he is the voice, the primary voice of restraint and has advocated for moving the drone strike policy from the cia more to the military and if it was under the us a passes of the military it would require greater transparency. of course, he's going to be there toeing the president's line, the administration's line. it will be interesting to see if there's hints of the desire to move it more to the military from the cia. >> we are in a post geographical war with people that don't wear uniforms. if we don't attack them in the -- >> no one doesn't want to attack them. >> where are the limits? it has to be somebody part of al

qaeda, something part of the war on terror as it's defined. there are no -- that's the problem is there are limitations. could be anybody anywhere according to this memo. >> no leg to stand on when this technology turned and used on us or allies. we will have no leg to stand on legal or otherwise. >> that's not true. that's not true at all. al qaeda attacked this nation. we are attacking al qaeda back. there's no -- >> a 16-year-old was not in al qaeda. >> hold on. but the difference is -- >> 700 innocent children were not in al qaeda, toure. that's what's happening. >> it needs to be codified because if we don't -- there needs to be a standard because if we have no standards for otherwises to articulate, when another country wants to use it against us, we don't have an ability to say, well -- there has to be some sort of international protocol how to handle this. >> no matter who's running the administration, yeah. >> all right. up next, the president out

this afternoon pushing once again for a grand bargain. yeah, that's out and howard fineman will join us in the guest spot as "the cycle" rolls on for tuesday, february 5th. in honor of new york getting the first country station since 1996, nash 94.7, i'll be offering a diet of country tunes. this is huge, folks. we've all had those moments.

when you lost the thing you can't believe you lost. when what you just bought, just broke. or when you have a little trouble a long way from home... as an american express cardmember you can expect some help. but what you might not expect, is you can get all this with a prepaid card. spends like cash. feels like membership.

who emailed it to emily, who sent it to cindy, who wondered why her soup wasn't quite the same. the recipe's not the recipe... ohhh. [ female announcer ] ...without swanson. the broth cooks trust most when making soup. mmmm! [ female announcer ] the secret is swanson.

while it is critical for us to cut wasteful spending, we can't just cut our way to

prosperity. our economy right now is headed in the right direction. and it will stay that way as long as there aren't anymore self-inflicted wounds. >> that was president obama this afternoon calling on congress to delay automatic defense and spending cuts that go in to effect in three weeks. talking $85 billion this year alone. more than a trillion dollars over the next decade. the president warned of a major hit to jobs and economy on march 1st if washington doesn't act. republicans quick to pounce ahead of the planned speech. don't look now, america, but your president is proposing another short-term fix for the economy and the spending problem. joining us now in the guest spot is msnbc contributor howard fineman. howard, so in the president's statement today he revived basically the broad framework for about the 47,000th time called the grand bargain and offered up basically in the summer of 2011 and the run-up to

the debt ceiling, and in the run-up to the fiscal cliff, excuse me, about a month idago, this idea of $600 billion in new revenue and entitlements. specifically in advance of the fiscal cliff, the white house wanted a change to the benefits formula for social security and basically be a benefit reduction over the long term for social security beneficiaries. is this just another, you know, trip down a dead end road to you or do you think there's movement on a grand bargain in the next month or two? >> i'm glad to be back on the show to qualify "the cycle" skeet shooting tournament. >> you're in. >> check out the stance, howard. >> i want to team up with s.e. of course. >> smart move. >> i called her already. >> okay. this is the -- did you say 47,000th? >> i lost count at 12,000. i'm guessing since then. >> what is whatever you said

plus one. there's practically politically speaking no way that the republicans right now are going to go along with anything like that number that you put up on the screen or, frankly, any number right this minute. their mood and i was talking with them this afternoon before i came on the air is they view the president's health care law as a form of a tax increase as the supreme court in a sense said it was. they think they got taken to the cleaners by the president. the progressives don't think that. most conservatives think they got taken to the cleaner by the president on the debt ceiling thing where tax -- income taxes raised on individuals over $400,000. they're not going to be in any kind of mood to accept any kind of, quote, revenue raisers, unquote. right now, or any time soon. i think what's going to be happening is you have a series of three different trip wires. you have the su quester.

you have the end of the later budget and then the debt ceiling this summer. happening over and over and over again. when there will be if ever a grand bargain, i frankly don't know and i wouldn't bet on it given the mood in washington right now. >> and meanwhile, we should point out, projections of the we have sit for 2013 under a trillion dollars down to 845 so maybe -- >> that's another point. >> sometimes -- >> exactly. >> the other thing is immigration. obviously, you know, high on washington's agenda this year, high on the administration's agenda. we had the news in the senate a week or two ago about potential bipartis bipartisan compromise with basically the enforcement and the pathway to citizenship and looks like that sort of that compromise might be hitting a snag in the house. the republican-controlled house where you have the republican chairman of the jewish dare committ committee this week holding hearings saying that's way too

far. the further out i heard anybody go is eric cantor basically saying a version of the dream act with the children of illegal immigrants but a full-scale pathway to citizenship, maybe that's too much for house republicans. do you think house republicans could block it or they get to, okay, we'll go along? >> i think the republicans could block it, steve. i think they may want to. my soundings this afternoon were, republicans in the senate who are part of the prospective deal still understand it and still i think would like to see something get done. at least they say so. but they say all bets are off coming to the house. i think the tea party is stronger in the house. i think you have to understand that the tea party is about spending and money and taxes but it's also about immigration. if you've been to a lot of tea party rallies as i have been, study the tea party you know the fear and role of immigration and people getting benefits that the tea party people think they

shouldn't get is a big part of the psychology of the tea party and influence in the house. i wouldn't bet on anything getting through the house. >> yeah. as steve mentioned eric cantor gave a big speech at the american enterprise institute today to provide a path forward for the republican party and sounded to me most of it was stuff that actually the president could have said. let's take a listen. >> whether it's college or the cost of day care, making life work for more families means reducing the economic insecurity plaguing so many working moms and dads. explaining that rising health care costs, depressing takehome pay and saying that it's justified, that's little consolation to the working mom. because her grocery bills are still higher. her kids still need -- have needs more expensive. the rent is up. and now she's just trying to get by. i think all of us know getting by is not the american dream.

>> and howard, in that speech, cantor basically outlined and focused on some of the least travel aspects of the republican party platform, education, flexible working hours, closing loopholes in the tax code. things that are broadly popular across the aisle s. that the republican approach to emphasize things that are popular in their party platform and just not talk about the other stuff? >> well, i think that even uttering the phrase working moms is progress for this republican party. >> right. >> but what matters is the details behind it. and whether you're talking about big cuts in discretionary spending that might include education spending, health care spending, child care, et cetera, when you talk about committing federal resources, tax money, to these kinds of problems, that's where the republicans go on a different direction and most of

the american people at a time where they're worried about the future, where they're worried about the state of the economy, where they really frankly all that optimistic about the private economy providing them jobs, they're going to look to the government for help. if the republicans continue to be philosophically opposed to that idea which they are at root then all kinds of speechers by eric cantor won't make a difference. >> gun control legislation is a big focus of the president right now. >> right. >> he is using the bully pulpit. working with the senate. trying to keep this balloon in the air, keep people thinking about this and newtown. how do you think he's doing? and what does he need to do to get effective gun control legislation passed? >> well, first of all, he needs to call harry reid in to his office and say get with the program, pal. i mean, harry reid not to use a bad analogy but sort of shot it down. and harry reid comes from a gun state, comes from that

background. he's been hit or miss on this in the past. if you don't have strong support from the leaders of the democrats in congress, how do you expect to get anything sweeping enacted? talking to people today, even the whole notion of expanding background checks and making them universal, the phrase universal background checks has now become a word of fear and a term of art among conservatives and the gun supporters who fear it's about registering, if you sell your something to the guy across the road that that's going to be require registry and you get the black helicopters flying within seconds there. i'm not even sure that in the end is going to get enacted. it is a sad, sad commentary on where this issue is. it's the ultimate conflict between targeted inside money power and the presumed views of all the american people.

90% of the american people in favor of some kind of thorough background checks for all gun sales. supposedly three quarters of nra members are in support of that. the president is trying. but i -- i think the outside game is important. but unless he has strong, strong support from the top leaders of his own party in congress, there's no way it's going to get done. >> howard, let's talk about the doj memo on drones. do you think that the mainstream media will give the president a hard time on that? >> sadly from your point of view, s.e. the answer is no. i think it's going to be mixed. first of all, i think this will be a reference that most people watching the show won't get. late douglas is turning over in his grave. >> steve got it. >> the champion of liberty taught for years at the yale law school, one of the people that put all this legal reasoning

together is harold koh and who was the dean and working as an advise tore the state department. i find it borderline chilling because they've expanded the idea of what's immediate in that memo if you read it. >> yeah. >> they also say that infeasible can mean that it might result in the loss of the lives of americans trying to take the person out in another way. it's infinitely expandable. we are doing down a road we won't be able to go reverse direction on. i think it should be the topic of primary main discussion in the country. i would bet you that mike isikoff's great reporting notwithstanding, it won't be. >> credit, too, to outlets like salon and given it attention over four years. >> appreciate that. i appreciate the time from you, howard. we all do. great to have you back on the show. >> great to see you guys. >> just days after the super bowl, is the existence of the

game of football in jeopardy? that's straight ahead. [ man ] ring ring... progresso this reduced sodium soup says it may help lower cholesterol, how does it work? you just have to eat it as part of your heart healthy diet. step 1. eat the soup. all those veggies and beans, that's what may help lower your cholesterol and -- well that's easy [ male announcer ] progresso. you gotta taste this soup. you know, from our 4,000 television commercials. yep, there i am with flo. hoo-hoo! watch it! [chuckles] anyhoo, 3 million people switched to me last year, saving an average of $475. [sigh] it feels good to help people save... with great discounts like safe driver, multicar, and multipolicy. so call me today. you'll be glad you did. cannonbox! [splash!]

with olay, here's how. new regenerist eye and lash duo the cream smooths the look of lids... softens the look of lines. the serum instantly thickens the look of lashes.

and the award for wow eyes in just one week goes to you.

just days after the super bowl with the city of baltimore still planning the party, a very serious football battle is being waged off the gridiron. in fact, the very fate of america's favorite sport hangs in the balance with attorneys and doctors piling on to the nfl over head injuries. chronic brain condition of cte is beginning to make the way in to the public conscious. it's the clearest evidence of brain damage linked to depression, memory loss, early dementia and even death. but the lawsuits don't fault the league, necessarily, for a lack of issue on the issue. the nfl accused of researching the long-term effects of concussions but then covering up the results to protect its bottom line. that's a claim the league vehemently denied.

could the legal challenges change the game forever and necessarily a bad thing? bloomberg businessweek's latest cover story is "crunch time." it's on news stands right now and paul bar vet the author and assisting managing editor. welcome. >> thanks. >> you write in here that the very future of football is at stake here and i'll quote you. you say if science one day determines that merely playing serious tackle football increases the danger of brain disease it's conceivable that the nfl could go the way of professional boxing. that sounds pretty dire. >> yeah. well, that's the fear. the science isn't quite there yet. but we do know that this repetitive jostling of the brain where the gray matter bangs in to the skull is seems to be causing long-term problems with a lot of nfl players. ex-nfl players. >> i'm not sure that it was brain injuries that damaged boxing as much as pay per view killed boxing but let's keep

going on the medical problems and the legal problems. football has several issues. culture of accepted risk. world of nonguaranteed contracts. you have to get back out there or somebody else will take your job. but key to the legal situation here is did the nfl give these guys the wrong information? and i think there is some evidence that they may have done that. there's a 2007 nfl pamphlet they gave the players saying research has not shown that having one or two concussions leads to permanent problems. roger goodall read it to players and focused on active players other than retired players showing much more cte. >> right. >> do you think there's a base taos the lawsuit where the nfl will be in trouble for giving the players the wrong information? >> there's a real threat here. it's a question of whether the nfl actively covered up what they knew. if they did something akin to the building materials industry

did with asbestos or tobacco with cigarettes. it's not proved yet but i think it's seen as plausible and that's why i think there's a lot of pressure on the nfl to settle the litigation, set aside some billions of dollar s to deal wih ex-players in the future. >> this wasn't a concussion but reminded of redskins rookie rg-3, had a knee injury. there was a question of whether he should have been allowed to continue in the game and the justification basically was that he really wanted to play. and so he was allowed to make that decision. is it fair to put that responsibility on the players to decide for themselves that they should be going back in the game? >> right. well, that wasn't as you said a brain situation but very relevant because it shows that the culture of staying in at all costs, of being the hero, is still very prevalent in the nfl and i think any adult let alone medical professional would say

it should not be up to the 23-year-old punked up on adrenaline to decide whether or not he stays in the game and be the hero. i think that controversial decision to leave rg-3 in is something that will bear on how this whole thing is sorted out. >> i wonder if there's steps taken in terms of tweaking or changing the game a little bit that could protect the players a little better. one thing that i jumped out at me, lou holtz, the coach, he said take the face guards off the hell mets. that way players can't lunge first and use the helmet as a battering ram and would go back to the fundamentals of tackling. i wonder if there's other steps that maybe the nfl and college should be considering. >> well, that's a fascinating proposal. i was just end s&ping time with a college roommate over the weekend that's a high school football coach and said the exact same thing. taking the face guards off, a few more broken noses and less

concussions. the safeguard of a face guard has this kind of, you know, paradoxical affect of turning the head in to a weapon. the nfl, though, is already changing the rules. the placement of the kickoff changed. they're more aggressive penalties being called so the nfl really does have the religion now and it's a question of whether they can resolve this body of claims by the 4,000 former players, set those aside. deal with them in a straight-up way and then move ahead to try to make the game safer. >> paul barrett, thanks very much for injoing us. >> my pleasure. >> president obama weighed in. >> some of the concerns we have learned about have to give parents pause and, you know, as i said before, i feel differently about the nfl. these are grown men. pop warner high school, college. i want to make sure that we're doing everything we can to make the sport safer. >> so do you think we need to

change the way the game is played in order to ensure player safety? peggy brand says, i think what the nfl is doing right now is a step in the right direction. i'm glad my son decided to stop playing in seventh grade. i probably want to ask him to stop. like us on facebook and join the conversation. up next, undaunted. from the home front to the combat zone. the author whose stories of military spouses inspired the hit series "army wives" brings us the real lives of women in uniform. ♪

[ male announcer ] why do more emergency workers everywhere trust duracell...?? duralock power preserve. locks in power for up to 10 years in storage. now...guaranteed. duracell with duralock. trusted everywhere.

duracell with duralock. we replaced people with a machine.r, what? customers didn't like it. so why do banks do it? hello? hello?! if your bank doesn't let you talk to a real person 24/7, you need an ally. hello? ally bank. your money needs an ally. the obama presidency is expanding personal liberty for the men and women who fight for our ours repealing don't ask don't tell and ending the ban on women in combat leaving with us a more inclusive military focused on the mission over the man or woman in the uniform. right now, women make up 14% of

the active duty forces. our next guest spent five years chronicling the lives of a few and despite advances the women defending our nation are still forced to prove themselves in ways the male counterparts are never asked to. joining us now is tonya bionc author of "undaunted." welcome. >> thank you so much. >> so how's life in the military fundamentally different for our service women? >> well, i think to succeed as a woman in the military that's how it's different. professional success in the military often comes at a personal price for both men and women. but women face their own set of unique challenges, things that they often deal with privately out of public view and that's something i wanted to examine in the book. >> tanya, the big news is the pentagon changing the rules and saying it would allow women in combat going forward. i've heard and i have read some

who have sort of said the facts on the ground already were sort of there, women were on the front line in a lot of ways. i wonder how much do you think this policy change will affect -- how will it affect women serving right now or just sort of a confirmation of how things already were? >> lifting the ban was certainly a confirmation of where the military was already headed. but this is quite significant. it's a historic moment because now women will be able to have many more job opportunities. if you look at the general officers rank in the military, 80% of generals come from the combat arms branches which up until now women have been banned from serving in. only 7% of women are general officers at the flag rank even though they make up almost 15% of the force. >> tanya, one of the unique challenges that you have talked about is the way that women are treated in the military and you said service women tend to be

labeled with one of three derogatory categories, dike, slut or a word many of us have been called. >> true story. >> there's "the invisible war" that raises the questions of rape and the way that rape and sexual assault handled in the military. is there a cultural problem here that we need to deal with, as well? >> i don't know that there's a cultural problem. but certainly, derogatory labels need to be dealt with and i think it's really comes down to a leadership issue, leadership has to set the standard and the example and the problem with those derogatory labels that you mentioned is that it affects a women's ability to be a team member and it affects her ability to lead within a unit. >> tanya, the death of chris kyle is weighing heavily on all of us and it made me think about a few years ago i was hunting in

alaska with some wounded women vets and we talked a lot about ptsd and wondering if you found women go through a different kind of ptsd than men or have unique challenges there. >> ptsd is one of the main reasons women seek help at the v.a. and half of the women that seek help are under the age of 30 so it's a very young demographic. and a lot of times ptsd in women has to do with military sexual trauma. mst. there's actually an acronym for it at the va and this includes both sexual harassment and sexual assault. >> all right. tanya, thank you very much. >> thank you. up next, what women and men really want in a date. the surprising survey results on america's single scene is living with your parents a deal breaker? good news for some of you. it's not! for over 75 years people have saved money with...ohhh...

...with geico... ohhh...sorry! director's voice: here we go. from the top. and action for over 75 years people have saved money with gecko so.... director's voice: cut it! ...what...what did i say? gecko? i said gecko? aw... for over 75 year...(laughs. but still trying to keep it contained) director's voice: keep it together. i'm good. i'm good. for over 75...(uncontrollable lahtuger). what are you doing there? stop making me laugh. vo: geico. saving people money for over seventy-five years. gecko: don't look at me. don't look at me.

paula. >> speet refusing to drive to my family's place for two weeks vacation. >> paula, talk it out before you walk it out. >> i'm here in new york while he's back there. >> long distance is the wrong distance, sue. deal breaker. >> nikki wants to take me camping. >> deal breaker. >> i haven't seen my fiancee in seven months. >> robot warning.

okay. that catch phrase needs a little work. deal breaker. >> teach it like you preach it! >> while we may not have her anymore to dish out the deal breaker singles advice, singles have a list. based on a new national survey of 5,500 single men and women for match.com some of those might surprise you. notable deal breaker, virgins and those with credit card and student debt but not a problem, living at home with mom and dad nearly half of the singles still cozy up with you in the basement of mom and dad's house. no matter your living situation, the survey will make you think twice about what you blog about in the future. almost half of ladies do their social homework. >> oh yeah. >> before a date and nearly same amount cancel if they find something online they don't like. i don't blame them for deeper understanding of the single life, we have an tlo poll pis angel fisher of rutgers. thank you for being here.

>> i'm delighted. >> are there big differences in the deal breaker list of men and women? >> well, when we asked what you really must have and very important for you to have, men and women very similar. they both basically want somebody that respects them, somebody who they can trust, somebody who they can confide in and makes them laugh and somebody who's physically attractive to them. so they're very similar in that way and rather similar in what they don't want and interesting to me seeming not to want anymore somebody necessarily from their same ethnic background or from the same religious background and that's a real change. i mean, for thousands of years you tended to need to marry somebody from your ethnic and religious background and this is slipping away. singles are looking for self full f fulfillment. they want a connection. >> is an actual plus for the person to be from a different ethnic or rely you background or just not a factor?

>> i would guess there's great pluses and minuses. we didn't study that in this particular questionnaire. we had over 200 questions. by the way, it was a national representative sample. we didn't sample the match.com population but based on the u.s. national census. we got the right numbers. gay, straights, every rural, suburban, age group, et cetera. when you marry somebody you have complications from a different background. like traditional holidays and so people do still naturally tend to be drawn to somebody from their same ethnic background but they don't say it's a must have. they don't need it anymore. we are turn to individual fulfillment. >> that's interesting. portends of a new america and you found out that for a lot of people, a deal braemer is being a virgin. 42% would not date a virgin and women especially, 51% of women

would not date a virgin. i think i completely understand but you're the guest. so why don't you explain to america why so many people and women in particular are like, no, virgin. >> i think it's easier to explain why women don't want a virgin. they want a man with experience and why hasn't one girl gotten him in to bed. but i think it's more curious to me that 33% of men do not -- will not date a virgin. and that, you know, that -- once again, 5,000 for 5,000 years, virginity at marriage was a core value in the western tradition, and to have this change so dramatically, it's to me a sea change. it is the one single statistic out of hundreds of thousands of pieces of data on this match.com study that really talks about a sea change in what the you're looking for. >> i don't know. we want experience, too, doctor. >> i'm a little unsettled by that. one thing that was pleasantly

surprising to me was to hear so many people put grammar as one of their top issues. second only to teeth when they go on a date in terms of judging their date. that's amazing to me. actually a really kind -- a sign of good thing, right? that we still prize good grammar, good spelling? >> i think that the teeth and the grammar actually come from evolutionary drives. i mean, your teeth say a great deal not only about your health but your youth. the older you get, the more they get chipped, the more they get discolored. >> and your economic status. >> exactly. by the way, even other primates, monkeys will be more attracted to a an individual who has very symmetriccle white teeth. i think the grammar talks about your background, your educational level, and, of course, we are living in the age of communication. i mean, you know, now longer have the best job because you

were so strong. today you get the best job because you are very skilled at communication and your grammar will play a big role in how well you can communicate, how far you're going to go probably even in the job market. >> we had to memorize linking verbs back in school. were there some surprising results in terms of attitudes of singles towards marriage? >> i was really pleased with this data. first of all, when we asked 90% of people who want to get married and the vast majority in their 20s and 30s still do want to wed, they want to get married, 90% of them believe you can remain married to the same person forever, and this has increased since 2011. we did the same study in 2011. and it's only about 75% of people believed you could stay married to the same person f foraftfo forever and now it's 90%. when we studied 1,000 married

people, over 5,000 singles but also 1,000 married people, this particular study, and 80% of people who are married today in america would remarry the same person again. >> amen. >> yeah. >> beautiful. >> it is wedlock happiness. >> dr. helen fisher, thank you so much for joining us. >> thank you. >> speaking of single ladies, which i'm sure we did in there somewhere, up next, s.e. takes on beyonce. twitter haters, get those fingers ready. but before you judge, listen up, you may agree with her. i'm pretty sure i do. [ male announcer ] need help keeping your digestive balance in sync?

try align. it's the number one ge recommended probiotic that helps maintain digestive balance. ♪ stay in the groove with align. ♪ need help keeping your digestive balance in sync? try align. it's a probiotic that fortifies your digestive system with healthy bacteria 24/7. because your insides set the tone. stay in the groove with align.

♪ >> luncheon on the grass. upon its 1863's debut the paris salon rejected it for its shocking nudity. 150 years later it's hanging prominently in a museum. not only unshocking but resoundingly accepted as one of the most influential paintings of the period. sex offends and sells no matter the era. in the late 1990s the young british artists sensation exit featuring he can police sitly sexual works managed to whip controversy. but the commentary that motivates many artists evades on

other two rely on cheap references to sex. as stand ins for intellectual discourse. let me bring us up to the current decade. on sunday night beyonce dazzled super bowl viewers, millions of them w a high energy performance of some of her best loved songs, and though it was an exciting performance, well sung and danced, it was also punctuated not infrektly by aggressively sexual gyrations, crotch grabs, and a suggestiveness that would only qualify as mere suggestion in a strip club. she isn't alone and hers was mild compared to others. if you saw madonna, britney spears, nicki minute jage, janet jackson, you know that these performances are often skimpily clad lap dances and whether we asked for it or not we are all the collective lap. fun for some, i'm sure, but super bowl producers should know that women are also watching. so are dudes who like dudes. so are really old people and so